Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Modeling » UML2 » May a Parameter have no type?
May a Parameter have no type? [message #477308] Thu, 01 May 2008 06:58 Go to next message
Felix Dorner is currently offline Felix Dorner
Messages: 675
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi,

the superstructure does not constrain the 'type' association of 'Parameter',
this implies that a Parameter may have no type.

In my view that's a bug and not a feature. There should be a constraint
context Parameter
type->size() = 1

or so, I'm not fluid in OCL..

Felix
Re: May a Parameter have no type? [message #477312 is a reply to message #477308] Thu, 01 May 2008 10:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kenn Hussey is currently offline Kenn Hussey
Messages: 1618
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Felix,

The way to enforce this would be via the lower bound of the
TypedElement::type property, but I'm not sure it makes sense. Note that the
absence of an explicit type for parameter may represent that the parameter
is of any type, as suggested by the semantics section for TypeElement in the
specification (p. 136 of 07-02-05):
A typed element with no associated type may represent values of any type.

Kenn

"Felix Dorner" <felix_do@web.de> wrote in message
news:fvc7oe$ftt$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hi,
>
> the superstructure does not constrain the 'type' association of
> 'Parameter', this implies that a Parameter may have no type.
>
> In my view that's a bug and not a feature. There should be a constraint
> context Parameter
> type->size() = 1
>
> or so, I'm not fluid in OCL..
>
> Felix
Re: May a Parameter have no type? [message #477314 is a reply to message #477312] Thu, 01 May 2008 12:13 Go to previous message
Felix Dorner is currently offline Felix Dorner
Messages: 675
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Kenn Hussey wrote:
> Felix,
>
> The way to enforce this would be via the lower bound of the
> TypedElement::type property, but I'm not sure it makes sense. Note that the
> absence of an explicit type for parameter may represent that the parameter
> is of any type, as suggested by the semantics section for TypeElement in the
> specification (p. 136 of 07-02-05):
> A typed element with no associated type may represent values of any type.

Hm, yeah.. Its a little misleading, the absence of a type somehow suggested to
me "no type"..
Re: May a Parameter have no type? [message #626472 is a reply to message #477308] Thu, 01 May 2008 10:40 Go to previous message
Kenn Hussey is currently offline Kenn Hussey
Messages: 1618
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Felix,

The way to enforce this would be via the lower bound of the
TypedElement::type property, but I'm not sure it makes sense. Note that the
absence of an explicit type for parameter may represent that the parameter
is of any type, as suggested by the semantics section for TypeElement in the
specification (p. 136 of 07-02-05):
A typed element with no associated type may represent values of any type.

Kenn

"Felix Dorner" <felix_do@web.de> wrote in message
news:fvc7oe$ftt$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hi,
>
> the superstructure does not constrain the 'type' association of
> 'Parameter', this implies that a Parameter may have no type.
>
> In my view that's a bug and not a feature. There should be a constraint
> context Parameter
> type->size() = 1
>
> or so, I'm not fluid in OCL..
>
> Felix
Re: May a Parameter have no type? [message #626475 is a reply to message #477312] Thu, 01 May 2008 12:13 Go to previous message
Felix Dorner is currently offline Felix Dorner
Messages: 675
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Kenn Hussey wrote:
> Felix,
>
> The way to enforce this would be via the lower bound of the
> TypedElement::type property, but I'm not sure it makes sense. Note that the
> absence of an explicit type for parameter may represent that the parameter
> is of any type, as suggested by the semantics section for TypeElement in the
> specification (p. 136 of 07-02-05):
> A typed element with no associated type may represent values of any type.

Hm, yeah.. Its a little misleading, the absence of a type somehow suggested to
me "no type"..
Previous Topic:Imported UML plugins implications to a runtime-workbench
Next Topic:Template Parameter upper/lower bound spec
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Apr 18 16:58:38 EDT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02000 seconds